The flaw in this piece is that Clark Rockefeller ... or whatever his name actually turns out to be ... did not lose custody of "Snooks" (are these people serious, calling a child that?) because of any anti-father bias in family court. He lost it because he refused to substantiate his identity during proceedings.

In other words, he was dodgy in court, and therefore was treated in the way that dodgy people are usually treated by courts ... whether they're fathers, mothers, sisters, uncles, whatever. His past, or lack of one, caught up with him, and his refusal, then and now, to identify himself, is his own problem.